If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The most important player on the team is easily Duncan as he effects the game on both sides. But at this stage TP is the obvious offensive #1 despite their averages being similar. This could end up like an MVP debate though. Better player vs. most valuable....

Yea but Parker was an MVP candidate and the team did fairly well with Duncan not getting much run

Numbers show how much the defense relies on Duncan. Even last year, with TP as an MVP candidate, that's simply cause his numbers were better than Duncan.

But in terms of importance to the team, it has to be Duncan. That's not taking anything away from Parker, he's been great, hitting clutch shots and getting his teammates open, but if you take out Duncan, this team will get lit up on a nightly basis.

Duncan easily. The thing is, people need to keep a couple things in mind. Has Pop said it' "Parker's team"? Maybe. And he wouldn't be wrong. Parker has, over the last couple seasons, played more minutes than Duncan, and he is the floor general. Duncan and Pop both put a lot of responcibility in Parker's hands. But that doesn't mean that Parker is the best player.

Duncan is, and has been the best player on the team since the 98-99 season (I put he and Robinson as equals in Duncan's first season). Duncan's minutes have decreased over the last few seasons, but his productivety has not really fallen off. If you look at his per36 minute stats he is performing very near the level he was when he was in his prime.

Pop isn't 'Antoni... he doesn't play his best players for 42 minutes a game. He knows that you need to develop a strong bench in order to win titles, and in turn, during the regulars season, he plays his starters fewer minutes than he does in the post-season to give the bench time on the floor to develop their game and become a better suport group.

Duncan, when he is on the court, is the best player the Spurs have. Parker and Manu are equals in my eyes, even if Parker has more time with the ball. It's hard to evaluate these players by their stats because they all give up their personal stats for the benefit of the team. Manu could be a diva and demand a starting job and he coudl very well have been a legit first option during his prime. But he knows the team is good and that Parker and Duncan have as much to contribute as he does, and that the bench ahd role players need to be invlved if the team is going to do well.

They take fewer minutes, have lower averages and as a result, win more games.

But the bottom line is, head-to-head, each of these guys (Duncan, Parker, and Manu) can outplay anybody at their position (which is not to say they always do, but that they can and often do). Duncan though is still the ebst player on the team.

Yea but Parker was an MVP candidate and the team did fairly well with Duncan not getting much run

Being an MVP candidate is a lot about perception and not always about who the better player is. I honeslty believe that had Parker gone down with an injury last season and George Hill played in his place, the team would have still been able to win 50 games. If Duncan had likewise gone down with an injury, the team would not have been able to compensate and there is no way they would have hit 50 wins.

And Nash has proved that you can win MVP and not be the best player on the team. Many people would argue that Amar'e was the best player on that Phoenix team, but at the same time that Nash was more valuable.

That, and people's perception about what is valuable are not always right. As an example, John Stockton never finished higher than Karl Malone in the MVP voting, but I think most people will agree that he was just as important to Utah's success as Malone. Why then has Stockton never won an MVP award? That said, I think Duncan is, and has been, the MVP of the Spurs since he was a rookie.

Numbers show how much the defense relies on Duncan. Even last year, with TP as an MVP candidate, that's simply cause his numbers were better than Duncan.

Maybe this year but I dont think thats true for last year. Individually, I do think Duncan was the better player (only slightly during the regular season but exponentially so come playoffs), but for that regular season in terms of VALUE. I think the voters got it right.

Last year when Duncan sat the team was able to bring in a very productive Tiago. Tiago has regressed and Duncan has improved so the 2-way difference has been more influential in this years numbers. But last year the Spurs efficiency fell off more without TP. You can look at the numbers with or without TP and Duncan, lineups with only Duncan vs only Parker, the results are the same. TP had a greater pull. His backup eventually became Neal, but hes not a PG by any means so the difference in the attack was compounded.

But in terms of importance to the team, it has to be Duncan. That's not taking anything away from Parker, he's been great, hitting clutch shots and getting his teammates open, but if you take out Duncan, this team will get lit up on a nightly basis.

I agree overall, Duncan is more important when the games are more important, but for these regular season grinds, I see no reason to go with the guy whos closer to his prime, putting up comparable individual production and superior +/- influence. Duncan has changed the game with his recent season tho.

“I didn't leave my bed, because I was like, 'Man, if I walk outside somebody might just try to hit me with their car or say anything negative to me’”

Being an MVP candidate is a lot about perception and not always about who the better player is. I honeslty believe that had Parker gone down with an injury last season and George Hill played in his place, the team would have still been able to win 50 games. If Duncan had likewise gone down with an injury, the team would not have been able to compensate and there is no way they would have hit 50 wins.

And Nash has proved that you can win MVP and not be the best player on the team. Many people would argue that Amar'e was the best player on that Phoenix team, but at the same time that Nash was more valuable.

That, and people's perception about what is valuable are not always right. As an example, John Stockton never finished higher than Karl Malone in the MVP voting, but I think most people will agree that he was just as important to Utah's success as Malone. Why then has Stockton never won an MVP award? That said, I think Duncan is, and has been, the MVP of the Spurs since he was a rookie.

Last year? I don't think we would've 50 with no Parker. Hill wasn't there either, backups were Mills/Neal, plus Manu was out a bunch of games with a broken hand.

But like I mentioned before, they will win more games if Parker goes out than Duncan, because someone like Mills can get it going offensively, and Manu can step it up in terms of attacking the basket.